Pure maths, physics, logic (braingames.ru): non-trade-related brain games - page 65
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Or doesn't it push at all (if you look at the reference frame associated with the cart)?
In my mind, an uncleaned cart will move on for two "reasons" at once.
One I will not describe, it is less obvious and may lead to fludo-quarrels.
The second I will describe, it is indisputable. It consists in the fact that the snow falling on both carts brakes both carts, because it is falling vertically, i.e. it has a vector of speed directed against the movement (in the coordinate systems of carts). That is, the carts have to accelerate the "stationary" snow to its speed. Since the non-cleared cart is heavier, and the amount of snow (by default) falls on them approximately the same, the braking of the heavy cart will be less. This follows from the same consideration that you would expect a heavy hammer to accelerate a nail driven into a board more than a light hammer, and consequently drive it deeper, at the same impact speeds. That is, in this case, the ratio of the masses of the settling snow to the carts rules. The heavy cart has a 'better' ratio, and the settling snow brakes it less.
Ъ
Give me the second one. The first one has long since been proven in the formulas.
I don't care, one's enough already.
I didn't want any forum viruses, I just posted a problem I can't solve...
Do you understand the formal consequences of all this?
Here Andrei thinks he has solved it (unclean - next?). And I still do not know how to approach it formally - especially after what MD has said here.
And we have not yet even started to consider the friction force...
Andrei thinks he's solved it (unclean - next?). And I don't know how to formally approach it yet - especially after what MD has said here.
So he said exactly what I said, only in words. I wrote without taking friction into account, its not a problem to introduce it, you get the same thing.
And you can make the assumption that it's done on small increments of time, i.e. the friction force has little effect on speed.
I didn't want any forum viruses, I just posted a problem I can't solve...
Do you understand the formal consequences of all this?
Here Andrei thinks he has solved it (unclean - next?). And I still do not know how to formally approach it - especially after what MD has said here.
And we haven't even started to consider the friction force yet...
Here, if friction is neglected at all, then my considerations (and, apparently, Andreev's formulas) unequivocally prove that the light cart will pass less.
I don't think the difference in friction will work against a heavy cart, i.e. create an inverse tendency.
This is exactly my second point. I am not versed in formulas describing friction related laws. But I guess that friction while sliding on snow has completely different characteristics than, say, polyethylene sliding on metal. Because sliding on snow is actually driving on water pillow, created by ice crystals (of which snow is composed) melting under pressure-sliding. Therefore, increasing pressure (to certain limits **) in no way increases friction, and in some cases can even reduce.
// ** "certain limits" is a very shaky concept, but I was referring to the case where the mass of the moving "projectile" is so great,
// that it already sinks into the snow and turns it from a sledge into an "ice-breaker type" :))
Andrei, you described something there in terms of efficiency. But the task is to understand what will pass next. It is not the same thing.
The snow is not melting, this is the condition of the problem. Friction is equivalent to the law of sliding friction, i.e. F = mu*N (N is the support reaction).
MD: I don't think the difference in friction would work against a heavy cart, i.e. create an inverse tendency.
The snow is not melting, that is the condition of the problem. Friction is equivalent to the law of sliding friction, i.e. F = mu*N (N is the support reaction).
Daush.
"Vertical snow does not melt.
When carts slide
Mathematicians dig
Perpendicular snow..."
**
Great universe, quite fabulous. Too bad there's no Snow Maiden in the problem. I want a Snow Maiden...!
;-)
Looked a couple of pages ago at the formulas that Mishek with Andrew there slipped under the skate. According to them it turns out friction can not be taken into account, it (the friction) mass does not care.
The problem clearly talks about friction. So there is friction.
I understand that the problem is about spherical horses in a vacuum, but those are the conditions.